As I wrote here:
Judge Lester impugned George Zimmerman's character, saying he "flouted the system." He said he exhibited disrespect for the judicial process. He said he was a manipulator. He doesn't think Zimmerman is credible. He has suggested there is probable cause for the state to charge him with a crime for misrepresentations in his bail application. He is holding the threat of contempt over Zimmerman's head. The state presented no evidence other than a flimsy affidavit that failed to include information it had contradicting its theory of guilt, and he found the evidence against Zimmerman "strong." In setting bail at a million dollars, he didn't even acknowledge the strength of the defense evidence presented and admitted at the hearing. He even gratuitously threw in he thought Zimmerman might be preparing to flee.
The question is whether a reasonable person in Zimmerman's situation -- a defendant in his court -- would fear the judge is biased as a result of his comments and rulings.
I also don't think much of the state's argument that this is O'Mara's second motion to recuse a judge based on impartiality. The motion O'Mara filed in April was based on section (d)(2) of the rule (affinity of judge to an interested person) not the impartiality section (d)(1). (The rule is here.) Although O'Mara mentions impartiality in the first motion, he cites a case law for his statement, not the rule, and it seems obvious to me the first motion is filed only under section (d)(2).
The import: If O'Mara's motion to recuse Lester was the first motion filed under Section (d)(1), he has to treat the facts as true. Only if it is considered a second motion under (d)(1) does the judge have discretion to rule on whether the alleged facts are true or not.
The state's response was entirely predictable.
I expect the state will argue that the motion is insufficient on its face, that all Lester did was issue an adverse ruling, he didn't express an opinion as to his views of the overall case, and that a reasonable person in Zimmerman's situation would not fear he couldn't get a fair trial (or SYG hearing.) Or maybe they will try to cast it as a successive motion.
The state says Zimmerman's fear was not objectively reasonable. Put yourself in Zimmerman's shoes: The issue is how he feels, and whether his fear is reasonable. Would you, if you were George Zimmerman, fear not getting a fair trial before Judge Lester? I think any reasonable person would have that fear. We'll see what the 5th Circuit says.
